To tell exp that he can now only see dd on weekends as agreed in court order....

[naughtyorouttacontrol]

The court order says that exp should have dd for one day per week saturday or sunday, which he agreed to.

That was a year ago. In that year he has seen dd very few times on the weekend certainly less then 10 possibly even lees then 5 days on the weekends. He does shift work and sometimes collects dd from childminder at 11 on his way back from a sleep in, as it seems to me he wants to keep his weekends free for himself. And if he has a day off in the week sometimes has dd.

He lets her down alot and makes promises that he doesnt keep. I feel that he sees dd when it suits him and is not committed. Then he is getting angery with me because I want him to be consistant.

DD has just started reception and I have told him that we now need to stick to the court order and he can see dd on the weekend. I also said if he wants he can have her for a sleepover on friday or saturday nights. To which he replied 'I am not your babysitter'. And has told me in the past he 'has a life' when I have asked him to see dd on weekends.

DD is only 4 and gets very tired after school and I really want to try to get her into a good routine. Also I would like to sometimes have time to myself on the weekends just as exp does so that I can do somethings I need to do like go to the gym etc.

So am I being unreasonable to say he cannot see her during the week?

mitmoo the parties are adversarial, the system assists in negotiating down the issues as far as possible. The remaining issues are determined by the court after hearing evidence.

Like I said earlier if it were so easy to reach a happy conclusion for all parties, parents like you would have reached them themselves.

My approach is not adversarial. Fancy doing some work experience? I'm sure you'd be at least fit to make my tea and watch my work. Experience is knowledge, knowledge is power.

And yes Mitmoo what would YOU do, oh legal oracle from high? How would YOU fix it??

Keep on I looked into this a few years back now so could well be out of date. I'd look to a model used in Florida as it was back in 2006, not sure of any changes since. I might not take all of it but a lot of it looked really positive at the time.

For example: If there is a history of domestic violence or abuse of the child the parent was made to go to parenting classes, anger management classes or whatever was deemed suitable before supervised contact is given.

If the child is hurt again there are no more second chances. If the resident parent doesn't comply with the order they are enforceable whereas in our courts many (fathers mainly but mothers too) could paper their bathrooms with unenforceable contact orders for all of the good they are.

The orders have to be safe first though as in Florida before they can be enforced. Shaky CAFCASS recomendations from people who don't' have to have any substantial training, should not be enforceable, we have to start with making the recommendations by CAFCASS trustworthy. CAFCASS were completely overhauled a few years ago and the whole board resigned IIRC could be wrong, haven't time to google it now.

The problem historically has been that judges are reluctant to jail or fine the resident parent for non compliance and it is deemed not to be in the best interest of the child. Hence they can be flouted with impunity. Makes a mockery of the system but the orders in our courts are flawed because CAFCASS is and they're the real decision makers.

Supervised contact here is tragically flawed. We find great Dads (and mums Dads mostly) who have been prevented from seeing their children due to protracted arguments and battles having to see their children in a supervised environment just due to the period of separation not because they are a danger. We also have parents who have a long history of abuse using the supervised contact as a stepping stone, often of only a few months, to proving they can comply and getting the same child/ren they were deemed a risk to without any intervention, parenting or anger counselling.

I would have all CAFCASS officers properly trained and remove biais out of the decision making process. If a solicitor and barrister tells me, so have no reason to believe they'd lie, that LESS than 1% of cases end up with an indirect contact order, you are going into a system if the child is at risk that is stacked against the child. Fewer presumptions of what is in the best interest of the child and more looking at indidvidual circumstances to make it fairer to both mother and father but mostly fairer for the children.

I would introduce a proper complaints procedure so CAFCASS is accountable. Certainly a few years ago solicitors would advice against making a complaint against your CAFASS officer as your case if you succeeded would only go to their colleague and it could backfire on you.

I would have following up independent reviews as to what has happened to the child and the relationships once the court procedures have finished. How can anyone gauge what works and what doesn't when they just don't ask the questions.

I'd make issues to look at the quality of the parenting rather than the gender of the parents. Id speed the whole system up. There is no way a child should be subjected to the decisions of the family courts, meetings with CAFCASS and uncertainty about their futures for years on end. No cases should be in the courts for years.

Non payment of maintenance in many states in the USA can lead to the loss of your driving licence or even jail. I'm not sold on that one to be honest.

Sorry if this is a bit rambly multi tasking.

Sir Nicholas Wall, as quoted by yourself, refers to reform being needed to stop PARENTs using children as weapons.

Please direct me to criticism of solicitors?

Your quote is a little outdated also. You are of course aware, dear oracle, that mediation is now compulsory pre any children act application ( save for instances of alleged DV)?

Seems all you have proved is that I, and one o the most senior family judges are "cut from the same cloth"- the system needed to change to stop PARENTS using their child. Mediation is a small step in the right direction. How do you suppose we fix it Mitmoo?

Glitter I'm so sorry that proving the system is adversarial despite your protestations to the contrary have made you scrape the barrell of the insulting department. Still it beats accepting you're wrong and the system itself is adversarial.

Thank you for the offer to be your tea lady, but it seems that as your on here all day every day you have time to make your own. It must be a very relaxed and underworked law firm you work for. Would there actually be anything to watch I wonder?

We know how incompotent the CSA are. Trying asking him privatly, then using it as a threat if he doesn't pay

edd, that is appalling advice. Maintenance and access are separate issues, and quite rightly.

What you suggest is blackmail. And using a child as a pawn.

Horrid.

firstly Mitmoo- you will note that 99% of my posts are done of an evening. i have a day off today, if that's ok with you.

For example: If there is a history of domestic violence or abuse of the child the parent was made to go to parenting classes, anger management classes or whatever was deemed suitable before supervised contact is given.

FYI- that does happen in UK Courts in cases of proven DV

If the child is hurt again there are no more second chances. if a child is hurt by a parent there would not be contact. i've never seen it. have you?

If the resident parent doesn't comply with the order they are enforceable whereas in our courts many (fathers mainly but mothers too) could paper their bathrooms with unenforceable contact orders for all of the good they are.

Contact Orders ARE enforceable. Penalities include community service, imprissonment, fines, confiscation of passport and ultimately, change of residence

i could go on picking your post apart, but i haven't the time or the inclination.

there are complaints procedure against CAFCASS, they are highly trained.

are you telling my the Florida system is perfect?

you moan about "good fathers" only getting supervised contact in the same post as moaning about kids having contact with violent fathers.

consider this- when a party makes allegations of DV the court have to err on the side of caution. contact is likely to be supervised whilst facts are establshed.

for as long as parties make false allegations, someone's going to suffer.

if you had a case whereby eg mum was alledging DV and dad was denying this with all his might, what contact would you recommend? what would you do in that situation?

for as long as the parties are liberal with the truth, the courts need to establish fact before they can consider the contact situation. sensible no? unfortunately this doeas lead to delays whilst the Court try and do a thourough job.

once again, if a satisfactory conclusion was so easy to reach, the parents would reach it themselves. the courts wouldn't be having to mop up your dysfunctional family with bickering opposing parents.

i'm firmly of the view that your beef is with me more than anything else, so i wont be engaging you on this topic any further. get a job.

MadameDefarge you are totally wrong there. If he wont pay up, he needs to be made to. I don't know if you know this but it takes two to tango, make a baby and have responsibilty. If he wont pay then make him

Edd. Don't be silly. Its about what is in the best interests of the child. withholding access, or threatening to do so because of lack of maintenance is morally reprehensible.

By all means use the CSA, but courts don't look kindly on parents who deny access purely for monetary reasons.

And I speak as someone who has never had a penny off ds's dad.

WTF? I never said anything about withholding access. Are you sure you read my posts properly? I said about using the CSA

I apologise Edd, I thought you were advocating that as the thread is about access. I accept that was not your meaning.

Look, we all know the law is an absolute arse on this issue letting good fathers down and allowing violent psychopaths to continue abusing their exes through their children.

Apparantly everything in the garden is rosy, violent fathers don't get to see their children, contact orders are enforceable and pigs do actually fly! Sadly that's not the case back in reality zone.

Back to the OP, they do have to be careful and stick to the order, not because the order is actually working, clearly it's not, but it's ordered. You have to be on fairly certain ground as to how the father will react in order to build in any flexibility into that order. There's no point in orders if you are able to negotiate.

If you start to offer midweeks, he could go back to court so that you have to make the child available midweek and weekends and still not turn up.

If you are sure that he wouldn't go back to court you could negotiate a more flexible pattern but with a child so young I wouldn't take the risk. He doesn't sound as if he's putting the child first at all.

Sooooo- you get a mother alleging violence. You get a father denying it till he's blue in the face. Dad points out no evidence- police or medical or witness, mum says she was too scared to report/tell. Dads asking for contact. Wwyd?

courts would err on the side of caution.

Allegations would need to be tested hearing evidence on that particular case. Each case on it's own merits.

Herein we have delay.

If the judge is satisfied to just 51% the allegations are true, they will be found as fact and only then will future contact be considered, in light of those findings. Courts will want to know what contact, if any, is appropriate.

Mum says " I told you from the start he was violent- I've been dragged through this for months. It's awful"

Otoh, judge finds that there was no violence and that mum has other reasons to have made allegations, ie dad had an affair and she had made it clear to him she would do anything to stop him seeing "her kid"

Once again, there has been delay as the courts had to test those allegations.

Dad tells you "I told you all along. My relationship with my child is now damages due to having to have one hr supervised contact/ no contact for the last "x" months"

I can't give real life examples of my work, but does the above example help to highlight the work a family court has to do and the innate difficulties it faces?

SG he courts take very seriously proven DV and the effect it has on kids. It is grounds for care proceedings based on emotional harm, if eg in circumstances where mum has been offered help to leave, turned down a place in a hostel, refused support, failed to engage with SS and or gone on to have similarly abusive relationships he can be deemed as failing to protect the children. It is very serious indeed.

That's not to say it's easy leaving a violent relationship, but if support is offered on a plate and mum turns it down on the basis that SS are being mosey and that shed rather continue her relationship than be alone, someone needs to protect the kids from all that brings. That what family courts do.

Re contact with a proven violent father, that would only ever be after a risk assessment and if it can be shown it would place mother at risk it would not be happening, unless eg the children were felt to have such a strong bond with their father ( kids seem to love parents unconditionally and be blind to their faults in their naivety) that they are suffering / asking to see dad/ in which case supervised contact may be attempted, for as long as the child is happy with it and benefitting from it. Mum wouldn't be expected to come into contact with dad.

Scusey spelling mistakes.

But you don't hear about or see cases whereby dad doesn't get access, mum does get permissions to move, contact is denied. Those with positive experiences are hugely less inclined to post about it/ tell people about it etc. because of the secrecy issues you are never going to see the full spectrum of exactly what goes on. It's understandable that you'd assume what you have, completely.

It's not going to be realistic to condense years of education, training and experience into a MN thread to get my point across. Doubt you'd believe what I said anyway. I wish I could give examples from both sides of the coin. I can't.